Posts by goldengull3

hollowtrucker77 said:No, I don't know how it's formed, which is exactly why I was asking Pizza and goldengull3.
🙂
Take something we interact with almost every single day—your car's engine block, for instance.
Inside that block, you’ve got all these intricate channels for oil and coolant, dealing with constant pressure shifts, temperature swings, and this massive demand for absolute precision and durability...

It really comes down to this: lasers fuse metal powder together. We can produce blocks with far superior quality using this method compared to traditional machining.

If you want a deeper dive into the reality of metal 3D printing, check this out: http://www.engineering.com/3DPrintin...h-America.aspx

placidranger said:Protect the copyright holder—which, let's be honest, is rarely the actual creator. In this industry, it's usually just a massive corporation.

Of course it's an issue for patent holders. 😁 So what? Since when did they deserve some kind of social hierarchy? You can make money off innovation without needing special privileges.

Quincy:

It's pretty straightforward—once all five permanent members of the Security Council agree, everyone will fall in line and stop their illegal activities because, well, they have the power to slap on sanctions. Copying is rampant right now simply because it suits China. Once they grow powerful enough to decide they no longer care, the landscape will shift.

Yeah... we'll see about that. It takes an incredible amount of industry lobbying to actually trigger sanctions against someone just copying industrial products.

I'm surprised you're fine with that logic. How are African nations supposed to develop if they don't build upon Western tech through imitation? Some things stay patented in the West, sure—but would it really be right to hit them with sanctions just for trying to catch up?

And once again, you aren't stopping anyone from setting their own terms within their own company. You sound just like those Linux enthusiasts on tech forums who spend more time weeping over conspiracy theories than actually addressing the market reality: "Look, I offer this, Microsoft offers that, Apple does this, and the consumer can decide which one fits their needs."

placidranger said:Protect the copyright holder—which, let's be honest, is rarely the actual creator. In this industry, it's usually just a massive corporation.

Of course it's an issue for patent holders. 😁 So what? Since when did they deserve some kind of social hierarchy? You can make money off innovation without needing special privileges.

Quincy:

It's pretty straightforward—once all five permanent members of the Security Council agree, everyone will fall in line and stop their illegal activities because, well, they have the power to slap on sanctions. Copying is rampant right now simply because it suits China. Once they grow powerful enough to decide they no longer care, the landscape will shift.

Yeah... we'll see about that. It takes an incredible amount of industry lobbying to actually trigger sanctions against someone just copying industrial products.

I'm surprised you're fine with that logic. How are African nations supposed to develop if they don't build upon Western tech through imitation? Some things stay patented in the West, sure—but would it really be right to hit them with sanctions just for trying to catch up?

Sure, they can turn a profit by exploiting a patent. They get twenty years of exclusivity, and after that, everyone is free to use it. Why should you be allowed to profit off someone else's invention?

placidranger said:Protect the copyright holder—which, let's be honest, is rarely the actual creator. In this industry, it's usually just a massive corporation.

Of course it's an issue for patent holders. 😁 So what? Since when did they deserve some kind of social hierarchy? You can make money off innovation without needing special privileges.

Quincy:

It's pretty straightforward—once all five permanent members of the Security Council agree, everyone will fall in line and stop their illegal activities because, well, they have the power to slap on sanctions. Copying is rampant right now simply because it suits China. Once they grow powerful enough to decide they no longer care, the landscape will shift.

Yeah... we'll see about that. It takes an incredible amount of industry lobbying to actually trigger sanctions against someone just copying industrial products.

I'm surprised you're fine with that logic. How are African nations supposed to develop if they don't build upon Western tech through imitation? Some things stay patented in the West, sure—but would it really be right to hit them with sanctions just for trying to catch up?

I don't doubt WIPO will find its footing once 3D printing goes mainstream; they’ll have to find ways to protect innovation eventually.

placidranger said:Protect the copyright holder—which, let's be honest, is rarely the actual creator. In this industry, it's usually just a massive corporation.

Of course it's an issue for patent holders. 😁 So what? Since when did they deserve some kind of social hierarchy? You can make money off innovation without needing special privileges.

Quincy:

It's pretty straightforward—once all five permanent members of the Security Council agree, everyone will fall in line and stop their illegal activities because, well, they have the power to slap on sanctions. Copying is rampant right now simply because it suits China. Once they grow powerful enough to decide they no longer care, the landscape will shift.

Yeah... we'll see about that. It takes an incredible amount of industry lobbying to actually trigger sanctions against someone just copying industrial products.

I'm surprised you're fine with that logic. How are African nations supposed to develop if they don't build upon Western tech through imitation? Some things stay patented in the West, sure—but would it really be right to hit them with sanctions just for trying to catch up?

African nations can either develop their own technology or simply pay for licenses; even the South saw steady development through licensing deals with companies like Ford. If you didn't invent it, it isn't yours.

By all means, feel free to voice your opinion to the US Congress tomorrow and demand your representatives defend your stance at the EU and the UN. Once the most developed nations decide to align with your view, there won't be any trouble getting WIPO and the rest of the crew to change the rules. Until then, we operate under the current ones. And regarding 3D printing, returning to the point, it will inevitably introduce new regulations—simply because inventors tend to be quite protective of their work.

It doesn't stop them from making it available to everyone, does it? It’s quite simple, really. Much like how you have the right to develop your own word processor, release it for free, and simply watch people choose to use your software instead of Microsoft's.

Nicholas Chavez70 said:One could easily argue that this elevates simple criminal activity to a much more dangerous tier altogether. We're looking at a scenario where terrorists and organized crime syndicates might actually start printing their own weaponry right from their basements... 🤷

The reality is that you can manufacture firearms quite reliably using nothing more than an old-school lathe. An AK is 1947 technology, anyway, and frankly, it’s often easier to just acquire one through established global channels than to attempt manufacturing it from scratch. You head down to somewhere like Somalia, buy what you need, and have it shipped to you by sea if you feel like it.

A globalized world offers plenty of advantages to criminals beyond just the internet. We don't even need 3D printing for that. There is simply no such thing as progress without its inevitable dark side.

placidranger said:Fine, whatever. But who is this "rule of law" actually protecting? It protects the people pouring hundreds of billions into the system just to ensure they claw back an extra hundred billion in profit instead of just fifty.

Quincy:

Sure, but nothing stops you from developing your own inventions. Absolutely nothing. You just don't mess with designs that someone else has protected—it's that simple. Otherwise, you deal with the consequences. It's basic logic. No one cares if you build something in your garage for fun, but once you take it to market, that’s a different story. It’s pretty straightforward: don't force your philosophy on everyone else; just live it. Use open-source projects, free industrial designs, free music, free films—you get the idea. Don't bypass payment when creators are asking for it—whether it’s a movie ticket, a rental, or a patent license. Then everyone stays happy. [/B] Otherwise—you better be ready to face the fallout.

Alright... Mom? What is the point of this post?

Industrial piracy is already a reality. With 3D printing, it’s just going to scale up. Go ahead—try to stop some African nation from copying the engine design of a brand-new Mercedes. What are you going to do? Send in the military? Sanctions?

We aren't off-topic here; 3D printing could significantly lower industrial production costs. Look at how parts of Africa are starting to industrialize. What are we supposed to do about Somali pirates? (edit: there’s your headline in the news seven or eight years from now 🙂 )

Protect the creator, plain and simple. An author holds the sole right to do whatever they please with their own work. It isn't your concern to police creations you didn't write, nor is it your business to worry about inventions where you don't hold the patent.

placidranger said:Fine, whatever. But who is this "rule of law" actually protecting? It protects the people pouring hundreds of billions into the system just to ensure they claw back an extra hundred billion in profit instead of just fifty.

Quincy:

Sure, but nothing stops you from developing your own inventions. Absolutely nothing. You just don't mess with designs that someone else has protected—it's that simple. Otherwise, you deal with the consequences. It's basic logic. No one cares if you build something in your garage for fun, but once you take it to market, that’s a different story. It’s pretty straightforward: don't force your philosophy on everyone else; just live it. Use open-source projects, free industrial designs, free music, free films—you get the idea. Don't bypass payment when creators are asking for it—whether it’s a movie ticket, a rental, or a patent license. Then everyone stays happy. [/B] Otherwise—you better be ready to face the fallout.

Alright... Mom? What is the point of this post?

Industrial piracy is already a reality. With 3D printing, it’s just going to scale up. Go ahead—try to stop some African nation from copying the engine design of a brand-new Mercedes. What are you going to do? Send in the military? Sanctions?

We aren't off-topic here; 3D printing could significantly lower industrial production costs. Look at how parts of Africa are starting to industrialize. What are we supposed to do about Somali pirates? (edit: there’s your headline in the news seven or eight years from now 🙂 )

It’s quite simple, really. Once all five permanent members of the Security Council finally find common ground, everyone else will fall in line and cease their illicit activities, fearing the inevitable imposition of sanctions. This rampant copying we see today persists only because it serves the interests of one particular player—China. Once they achieve enough development to decide that such imitation no longer suits them—which, frankly, seems imminent—the entire landscape will shift.

Of course there will be some level of pandering; crime has been an inherent part of the human condition since the dawn of civilization.

placidranger said:In that scenario, expect industrial-scale piracy.
You wouldn't download a car? Please. You totally would.🙂

Yes, R&D costs hundreds of millions. But what if "development" just meant copying and tweaking something slightly? For everyone?
You have a public blueprint. If you’re just manufacturing that exact blueprint, a hundred other companies are doing the same thing—you have zero edge. To actually gain an advantage, you have to innovate. Since everything is publicly available, making a minor tweak to an existing design is where the profit lies. And those profits come from leveraging all the innovations others have already paved the way for.

That's essentially how 3D printers themselves evolved.
Essentially, I think the whole concept of copyright will be bypassed in many cases; blueprints will be open-source from the jump, making copying permissible—and eventually, that's where the real money will be made.

That is precisely why a rule of law exists—to prevent such things, much like how it prevents you from doing 120 mph on an interstate. Either you follow the law, or you commit a crime. And given how fast technology moves, detection is easier than ever; we went from fingerprinting to DNA sequencing, which has become increasingly efficient. Crime has never been more easily uncovered.

placidranger said:In that scenario, expect industrial-scale piracy.
You wouldn't download a car? Please. You totally would.🙂

Yes, R&D costs hundreds of millions. But what if "development" just meant copying and tweaking something slightly? For everyone?
You have a public blueprint. If you’re just manufacturing that exact blueprint, a hundred other companies are doing the same thing—you have zero edge. To actually gain an advantage, you have to innovate. Since everything is publicly available, making a minor tweak to an existing design is where the profit lies. And those profits come from leveraging all the innovations others have already paved the way for.

That's essentially how 3D printers themselves evolved.
Essentially, I think the whole concept of copyright will be bypassed in many cases; blueprints will be open-source from the jump, making copying permissible—and eventually, that's where the real money will be made.

Yes, but there is absolutely nothing stopping you from developing your own inventions your way. Nothing at all. It just means you cannot meddle with inventions that someone else has protected—it’s that simple. Otherwise, you face the consequences. It's straightforward. Of course, nobody will bother you if you build something in your garage for non-profit use, but once you take it to market, that is a different story entirely.

The logic is simple: stop forcing your philosophy on everyone else and just live it. Use open-source projects, free industrial designs, royalty-free music, and independent films. Don't bypass payment when creators explicitly ask for it—whether it’s a movie ticket, a rental, or a patent license. Then everyone stays happy.

Otherwise, you have to be prepared to deal with the fallout.

Anyway, we are getting off track. 🙂

northernsailor8 said:This isn't really a question of whether copyright should exist, but rather its scope. I think most people would agree that limiting reproduction has become nearly impossible, but that's more a matter of distribution models, accessibility, and middlemen than the creators themselves.

In fact, it seems many people are actually willing to pay for high-quality service and bonus content if there are minimal intermediaries, the content is easy to find in one place, and the price is reasonable.

However, that mostly applies to the entertainment industry. Intellectual work that has practical utility—meaning its application creates tangible value—is a different story altogether. In those cases, the work becomes an intellectual tool in production, much like manual labor, machinery, or other physical assets. We are talking about the foundations of an economic system here. There could be a drastic decline if we rely solely on enthusiasts who prioritize the "public good."

I think you might be off by a century or two. Nowadays, you train a worker in a very short timeframe, and new technology is implemented within a few years. Welcome to the 21st century and our era of global knowledge and communication. 😉

Precisely. Americans have already demonstrated that selling music for 99 cents and providing streamlined streaming services for series and films significantly curtails piracy.

But developing an engine that requires hundreds of millions of dollars in R&D is an entirely different matter. In that sector, components will be fiercely protected. That said, a major advantage will be the ability to simply print what you need instead of waiting for a spare part to arrive from some distant distribution center. Naturally, this also reduces the number of workers required to maintain a functional service network.

hollowtrucker77 said:I mean, let's be honest, you didn't actually explain anything there either; you just dropped a dogma and walked away.
🙂

Here is a test model for you: http://www.zadarinfo.com/ZDinfo/?p=16447

The core issue is that it allows for the creation of a porous chamber. In this setup, the incoming fuel itself acts as the coolant for the chamber walls. Given the sheer intensity of the temperatures generated in there—which, frankly, would melt through just about any material known to man—this design facilitates a fundamentally different method of engine operation.

placidranger said:You aren't getting it. Of course scientists and innovators need to profit from their breakthroughs. The issue is that the traditional copyright model is fundamentally broken in an era of anonymous internet publishing. I could upload a copy of your book under your name on my site or via torrents. You're stuck. You have no one to sue because you don't even know it was me. There's no way to scrub it, and the government isn't going to shut down the entire internet over a few books. It’s smarter to stop fighting the tide and start using the tech to your advantage—which is exactly what some authors are already doing. They put the book online for free and make their money through physical copies, speaking tours, film rights, or crowdfunding platforms... Copyright is becoming unenforceable. But again, let's stay on track.

The new industrial revolution definitely includes 3D printers. It's a massive leap forward (many of them are open source).

Then you have the DIY electronics scene—Arduino and all its various clones and derivatives (also open source). Innovation is migrating from massive factories into living rooms and basements. It's a dramatic surge in innovative potential.

And then there's the infrastructure and fuel that will turn those innovations into products for the masses—cryptocurrencies, specifically Bitcoin.

Robotics will likely plateau for another 5 to 10 years until we hit some major breakthrough, but we'll see automated drones everywhere.

The concept of copyright is perfectly applicable to the digital landscape; you are simply attempting to convince me otherwise because you harbor a distaste for the idea of paying someone for their labor. 🙂

It is precisely mindsets like yours—where treating someone else's intellectual property as common loot is considered "normal"—that necessitate the ever-increasing expenditures on internet oversight. Those funds could be utilized far more intelligently, yet we cannot simply permit people to mock the fruits of another's toil. Through legislative updates, unconditional prison sentences, and more robust monitoring systems, order will largely be restored within a few years. After all, the internet today is subject to significantly more legal scrutiny than it was fifteen years ago; anyone who was online back then remembers when regulation was virtually nonexistent.

This is, of course, assuming we don't restrict authors from choosing to distribute their own work freely (though you haven't specified how many months of your own labor you've actually given away for free, or perhaps you simply don't value your own principles.

placidranger said:You aren't getting it. Of course scientists and innovators need to profit from their breakthroughs. The issue is that the traditional copyright model is fundamentally broken in an era of anonymous internet publishing. I could upload a copy of your book under your name on my site or via torrents. You're stuck. You have no one to sue because you don't even know it was me. There's no way to scrub it, and the government isn't going to shut down the entire internet over a few books. It’s smarter to stop fighting the tide and start using the tech to your advantage—which is exactly what some authors are already doing. They put the book online for free and make their money through physical copies, speaking tours, film rights, or crowdfunding platforms... Copyright is becoming unenforceable. But again, let's stay on track.

The new industrial revolution definitely includes 3D printers. It's a massive leap forward (many of them are open source).

Then you have the DIY electronics scene—Arduino and all its various clones and derivatives (also open source). Innovation is migrating from massive factories into living rooms and basements. It's a dramatic surge in innovative potential.

And then there's the infrastructure and fuel that will turn those innovations into products for the masses—cryptocurrencies, specifically Bitcoin.

Robotics will likely plateau for another 5 to 10 years until we hit some major breakthrough, but we'll see automated drones everywhere.

Just as many other amateur projects are open source, this doesn't change the fundamental reality. Much will remain protected behind industrial proprietary walls. In fact, the Chinese will likely become the primary global advocates for such protections within a year. 🙂

placidranger said:Terrible logic. There is a massive distinction between eliminating patents and copyrights—making everything public domain—and a dictatorial structure seizing ownership rights.
Furthermore, if others are allowed to copy you, then you should be able to copy them. A system where everyone copies from everyone else can actually function quite well if everyone wins. That’s why patent pooling and exchange agreements exist.

No matter how you spin it, effective copyright protection is becoming a thing of the past. Anything posted online—movies, music, 3D design files—is effectively public. You can always sell specific services, but information? Not so much. Once it’s copied once, it’s out there for free.

That isn't true; if you publish my book publicly without permission, I will pursue legal action against you without hesitation. In fact, enforcement might actually become easier, given how significantly Internet monitoring systems have improved in recent years.

But my point remains: you could spend two or three years laboring over a project and then release it freely. In fact, I believe anyone championing "open source" or the "abolition" of intellectual property should lead by example. They should say, "I spent two years writing this textbook, and now I am releasing it for public use," or "We spent five years developing this engine, and now it is available to everyone." It is best to back one's ideals with actual practice. Aside from a few Linux enthusiasts and some anonymous indie bands, I don't see many such examples. But we are drifting off-topic; feel free to start a separate thread for that.

3D printing will undoubtedly force the development of new models for protecting intellectual property. Innovation carries a cost. Knowledge and design deserve compensation. If you aren't willing to pay, then simply develop your own things.

Naturally, no one will bother you if you are printing something for your own private use, but if you intend to bring it to market, you will certainly be expected to pay.

Nicholas Chavez70 said:What truly strikes me as profound, however, is this specific aspect... Once we master the mechanics of stem cells and the various ways they can be manipulated, we will practically be able to manufacture almost any organ using a patient's own cells. This effectively eliminates the need for donors entirely. If this technology actually comes to fruition, it would be an absolute game-changer for medicine as we know it. 🙏

http://www.sciencechannel.com/tv-sho...new-organs.htm

We are already seeing 3D printers being utilized in experimental medicine; for instance, researchers in Italy are developing a system to regenerate knee cartilage, which is a remarkably common issue. The process is relatively straightforward: you have your knee scanned in 3D, a model is printed, a nutrient-rich scaffold is prepared, and a small sample of your own cartilage is seeded onto it. Once it grows on that replica of your joint, it’s surgically implanted into your actual knee. It's a simplified version of a complex procedure, but the result is your own lab-grown tissue—not quite a perfect biological duplicate, perhaps, but infinitely superior to any synthetic substitute.

hollowtrucker77 said:Are you actually trying to lecture us on stuff you clearly don't understand, or do you just lack any clue whatsoever and therefore feel like talking about everything anyway?
"Overly complex geometry"?
Why don't you be a hero and explain to the rest of us how the hell 3D printers even work?

Look, 3D printing allows for the fabrication of rocket fuel combustion chambers with geometries that simply can't be achieved through traditional manufacturing methods.

northernsailor8 said:That sounds lovely. Let's just force everyone who spent decades studying, experimenting, and grinding to invent something into a system where any random person with more capital can simply snatch their idea, get rich off it, while the actual creators stay stuck in their basements struggling to get by.

It’s definitely a great way to encourage high-level scientific research. By the way, we saw a similar setup under old-school socialism, where the government automatically owned all patents. I suppose I don't even need to mention how those socialist nations fell so far behind in R&D that they basically lost the race against capitalism for good.

An individual researcher who gets robbed of their own work loses the drive to keep going. I guess I wouldn't feel much motivation to write anything useful if anyone could just read it and claim it as their own.

True, they didn't fall behind in military tech or what used to be called "specialized" industries (including space exploration). That’s because the engineers and innovators in those specific fields were actually treated well. They were handsomely compensated with better apartments, higher-end cars, superior salaries, and luxury vacations in Miami.🙂

Nicholas Chavez70 said:What you’re describing applies only to the upper class, but even then, computers and replicators can be programmed to follow any recipe to produce any meal... Theoretically, there wouldn't even be a need for a traditional chef, but rather a new profession altogether, something akin to a food designer... 😁 😁

Essentially—yes. Who would actually want to eat the exact same thing every single day? A flavor designer... now that has a certain ring to it.

briskskipper27 said:Copyright should just be abolished entirely.

By all means, feel free to declare everything you work on—every bit of intellectual property you touch—to be open source. 🙂 But I have to wonder: how much of your own work have you actually liberated to prove your point? Are we talking about a month of effort, a year, or perhaps five years of dedicated labor?

Furthermore, it isn't your responsibility to solve the dilemma faced by creators who have spent years bleeding over a manuscript or a studio album, only to seek legal protection so they can actually earn a living. The solution is simple: you don't have to use their work. Take 3D printing, for instance; if you truly believe this, then simply develop your own designs. You won't need to rely on anyone else's protected files, patents, or proprietary tech.

Certain systems will undoubtedly undergo reform in the future, but certainly not through the lens you're proposing.

ruggedgardener2 said:But he's out here claiming that technological progress is wiping out more jobs than it actually creates.

I suspect the USA has managed to claw back its former productivity levels since the crisis, though it seems we’re still sitting on about 5 million fewer employees—if I recall correctly from some commentary I came across.

The reality is quite simple: the world is changing. Sure, new industries will emerge, but those roles won't be for everyone. For people looking for straightforward work without the headache of constant complexity, or for those who simply never had much patience for the classroom, opportunities are going to dry up.

Amanda Diaz said:Are we even preparing for the future? And honestly, what can a country with an economy the size of America's mid-sized states actually do about it? Invent a 3D printer? No chance—it’s already done. Throw a few billion dollars at improving existing tech? Forget it, because some global superpower will just dump tens of billions into the exact same thing tomorrow.

So, how exactly is this "preparation" supposed to work? I'd love to know, just so I can actually get ready...

We can, however, teach the next generation how to actually use those technologies—focusing on manufacturing, coding, and industrial design.

We can adjust school curricula and university programs to match the shifts we know are coming.

Richard Wilson4 said:Ever since I heard you could actually make food out of algae, I’ve been sitting here wondering—why isn't this some massive industry bigger than the damn iPhone? It’s basically just high-tech snacks for adults, so why aren't all our government agencies stockpiling this stuff already?

The Japanese people have been eating algae for quite some time now. Then again, you can't ignore the fact that wheat remains significantly cheaper.

Nicholas Chavez70 said:Honestly, this is the absolute pinnacle of progress... For professional athletes, this will likely go down as the greatest invention in history. I find myself wondering about the price tag, though, and more importantly, if they could eventually manufacture an artificial disc to sit between my vertebrae... 🤷

That 2019 Ford Focus actually features the same technology we're seeing in this Mercedes-Benz now... if not even earlier... 😉

As of right now, I don't expect much movement. We're looking at experimental therapies being run out of university hospitals. It'll likely be a few years before we see anything concrete.

ruggedgardener2 said:goldengull3, I'm dying to hear what you think about this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYIfeZcXA9U

I don’t have the luxury of sitting here and watching the whole thing right now, but if you ask me, the job market shift is actually quite straightforward. We are seeing the elimination of roles that are purely repetitive and offer zero incremental value, though, in their place, entirely different opportunities are emerging.

The jobs being phased out include things like:
- Assembly line workers—a robot handles that far more efficiently.
- Grocery clerks—they don't add unique value or meaningfully drive sales.
- Truck drivers—automation is already proving superior (even as we speak).

But conversely, certain roles aren't disappearing; in fact, demand will only climb:
- Designers—the advent of 3D modeling presents a massive new frontier.
- Mechanical engineers—they can now develop technologies they previously could only dream of.
- Chefs—they provide intrinsic value by refining and customizing a product (though I suspect high-volume cafeteria cooks will eventually be replaced by advanced printers).
- Car salespeople or servers—human social interaction drives sales in a way a kiosk simply cannot replicate.

That said, this reality completely dismantles the outdated vision of "industry" that many Americans cling to. The kind of industrial landscape being built today doesn't require massive factories packed with thousands of low-skilled laborers.

nimblelynx7 said:This is clearly the future, and we are absolutely not ready for it.

That said, I don't think it’ll happen overnight. The tech is still in its infancy and hasn't been properly vetted yet.
In the end, it’ll just be another scheme to line the pockets of a select few. They'll "produce" goods even cheaper than Chinese people can, raking in massive profits while leaving X times fewer workers with jobs.
Are they going to ship 3D printers to African Americans to solve world hunger? I highly doubt it.

Maybe in 100 or 200 years, it’ll become cheap enough for every household to own one. Until then, nothing changes—except a handful of people getting richer while the workforce shrinks even further.

Ownership isn't even a requirement. We already see "print shops" popping up in cities where you can simply bring in your digital designs and have them produced. This isn't a slow evolution spanning centuries; it's moving rapidly, likely within just a few years.

And the Chinese people are preparing aggressively:

Silicon Valley startups and private companies are starting to invest in new technology and coming up with innovations.
3D printing companies have flocked to this year’s World's Fair, bringing their newly designed products and technologies, looking to expand their market in the US.
"The price of a 3D printer is still high, but many local companies have already considered buying the product. Especially jewellery companies. It’s easier for them to design their product effectively and efficiently," said John Doe, who is a Sales manager at a US company.
The market for 3D printing and services was reportedly worth 2.2 billion dollars worldwide last year, 29 percent up from the previous years. The industry has been growing by more than 20 percent annually and growth is expected to accelerate.
This is one of the biggest 3D printing centers in the US, located in the southwest region near Chengdu. Experts say 3D printing is increasingly being used in the automotive, aerospace, and medical industries. They also say it could become more important in the final stages of production.

http://english.cntv.cn/program/newsu...5/100712.shtml